Allowed

Karan Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2024CRA/1408/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act, the High Court held that Section 3(2)(v) of the Act does not apply as the victim is not of Scheduled Caste origin. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court allowed bail as the prima facie offence under the Act was not made out.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail in Rs. 50,000 with one surety on bond of Rs. 50,000.

Karan Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2024.11.28 17:35:33 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1408 of 2024

¶6

1 - Karan Soni S/o Late Moolchand Soni, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Bazar Chowk Suhela, P.S. Suhela, District- Balauda-Bazar (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent For Appellant : Shri S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For State : Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board

¶12

26.11.2024

¶13

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act, 1989') against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) Raipur, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.264/2024 registered at Police Station, DD Nagar, Raipur, for the offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has been rejected.

¶14

2. Case of prosecution, in brief is that, the prosecutrix lodged a written report to the police stating that she introduced with the appellant in the year 2018 through facebook and in the year 2019 she met with him at

¶15

2 / 5

¶16

Railway Station, Raipur and thereafter used to meet occasionally. On 15.10.2021 the appellant took her to the house of his friend where he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage which continued up to 01.10.2023. Subsequently, she came to know that the appellant has performed marriage with some other girl and therefore she lodged the report. On the basis of written complaint made by the prosecutrix, FIR was registered on 17.06.2024 in which the appellant has been arrested on 04.07.2024 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and false report has been lodged against him. The prosecutrix is a major girl and was having love affair with the appellant. She was engaged in making consensual physical relation with the appellant, however she lodged the report only to extort money from the appellant. Considering long relationship and also that last incident was occurred on 01.10.2023, however the report has been lodged on 17.06.2024 itself shows malafide intention of the prosecutrix. There is no explanation for such long delay in lodging report. The offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 is not attracted against the appellant as the offence has not been committed on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the appeal and submits that prosecutrix was sexually exploited by the appellant since 2021 on the pretext of marriage and ultimately he refused to marry with her and performed marriage with another girl. The appellant refused for marriage on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste

¶19

3 / 5

¶20

community. Therefore, there is sufficient material available on record and as such the appellant is not entitled for bail. Consequently, the appeal may be dismissed.

¶21

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶22

6. The Supreme Court in case of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, has observed in paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:-

¶23

"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(1) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.

¶24

As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.

¶25

I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests; i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament."

¶26

7. Further, in the matter of Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan,

¶27

2006 (3)SCC 771 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶28

“15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine.”

¶31

8. The contents of FIR would reveal that the appellant developed physical relation with the prosecutrix. Although the statement of prosecutrix would show that relationship was on the pretext of marriage, but considering duration of their relationship one cannot remain in assurance that appellant will marry her and she was actively engaged in making consensual physical relationship with the appellant. The nature of allegation and the material collected during investigation clearly reveals that she being a consenting party have engaged on her own will in making physical relation with appellant. The parties were adults who voluntarily of their own free will established physical relationship with each other ever long years. Being an educated girl could have understand her well being before making consensual physical relationship with the appellant.

¶32

9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and allegation in the FIR as well as statement made by the prosecutrix, in the opinion of this court, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 would not be attracted against the appellant for considering the present bail application. Therefore, it will fall within the exceptional case.

¶33

10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur in Crime No.264/2024 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court on following conditions:

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

That, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶36

That, the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶37

That, the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶38

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶39

inder

Karan Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant @ Hemlal Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chand @ Chandu Sanvra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishor Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Khairwar, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudeep Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh